Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-08-18

I
ters alleged in the answers and sup
denies that she has ever in any man.
ner deceived E. j. Baldwin, or that
she has ever in any manner acted in
bad faith with said Baldwin. She
AYERS that II. A. Unruh, the general
land confidential agent and business
manager of +. j. Baldwin has been,
lever since the 2Sth day OF
June, 1887, fully cognizant, as she is
Informed and believes, and therefore
lalleges of all matters and facts possi-
BILE to be proved or established in
contravention and avoidance of the
release set forth in the supplemental
answer. She AYERS that A. j. Lucas
and other parties, whom she is in
formed and believes, were agents of
said Baldwin, obtained said release
from her fraudulently and by deceiv-
ing here1 and by making statements
to her which were false and known to
said Lucas and said other agents to be
1 false, and which were so made in the
interest of said defendant and have
since, as she is informed and believes,
been ratified and accepted by said
Baldwin and for the purpose
of deceiving this plaintiff and
in fact did deceive her. That after
said release was procured, to-wit /:
about the middle of July, 1887, said
Lucas acting, as she is informed and
believes for the defendant herein,
called on her at the City of San Fran
cisco, where she then was, and re-
| o,,a,toJ J,or r., o;rn n 1ooup,apt i,, tba
following words:
z. j. Baldwia, Esq, San Francisco
understand the breach of promise
suit which l brought against you is set
for trial on July 25, 1887, in Los An
geles. 1 have made up my mind not
to prosecute it any further, so will not
appear, and you can have it dismissed.
| Date July -
| Yours truly,
The plaintiff then and their de-
clined to sign the same, stating to said
Lucas that she would sign no more
papers, and that she regretted
having signed the papers to
which she had already attached
her signature, to-wit, said release.
Said Lucas thereupon asked plaintiff
whether she was going back on "us,"
referring to Baldwin and himself, and
she declared that she did not propose
to authorize the dismissal of said suit.
She is informed and believes, and,
therefore, SO alleges that said facts
were well known to the general agent
of said Baldwin, and that the defend
ant herein had notice through his said
agent that she did not acquiesce in
said settlement and would not permit
said case to be dismissed. Plaintiff
further says that she is desirous of
pressing said case to trial and of fully
litigating the same, and of fully dis
closing not only all the facts relating
to the case itself, but she is anxious
to be afforded an opportunity to show
the fraudulent conduct of the defend
ant in procuring said alleged release
from her, which release she AYERS is void
and was obtained by fraud and mis-
representation. She further says
that when this case was called for
trial on the 25th day of July of the
present year it was continued until the
10th day of August, and the jury here
in were ordered to return at this date,
and that the jury was originally de-
manded by her and that she has been
put to expense in the matter of procur
ing the attendance of witnesses for this
trial and in preparing therefor. She
AYERS that no notice whatever that any
attempt would be made to discuss this
action was given to her or to her coun-
sci, and that she did not know that
any such attempt would be made un-
til after the case was
called yesterday; that no motion
or effort of any kind was made before
said jury appeared to procure the dis
missal of said jury or to prevent their
attendance hereat. That among the
Misrepresentation which were made
to her by the agents of said Baldwin
was statement to the effect that her
attorneys in this case had contracted
to sell her out and had for a consider
alton agreed with said Baldwin that
she should be defeated in said action
and that they would continue and de-
lay said case and cause errors to be
made in the rulings therein all in the
interest of said Baldwin and to enable
him to obtain judgment in said case
and they did in that manner deceive
said plaintiff as to the good
faith of said attorneys and the
said agents by means of cunning
representations and false statements
induced the plaintiff to believe that
her said attorneys were not acting in
good faith with her, and that there
was nothing left for her but to take
whatever she could get from said
Baldwin, through his said agent; and
said Lucas, acting, as she is informed
and believes, as the said agent of said
Baldwin, and pretending at the same
time to represent the plaintiff, only
stated to her that various persons
whose names were familiar to her had
said paper, which showed that her
said attorneys had sold her out, and
said Lucas furnished the names of
such parties in writing, the names
being as follows T. c. Lampor, w.
j. Wood, B. w. Lee, H. T. Gage and
B. Bouton, and it was stated by
said agent in writing that there
were also others who saw such paper,
and that the same was done at the
Baldwin Hotel, San Francisco, and
that the judgment in said action was
assigned to S. M. White, one of the
plaintiffs attorneys, by the Sheriff OF
San Francisco, all of which state
ments 80 made by said Lucas she
afterwards discovered to have been
false, and made for the purpose of de.
ceiving her, and in the interest OF
said Baldwin. There were many
other Misrepresentation made to her
by said Lucas and other parties rep
resenting said defendant in connec-
ton with said matters, and which re-
suited in the procurement of said re-
lease. The said A. j. Lucas, as
plaintiff is now informed and believes,
was convicted in the County of Alameda
and in the Superior Court thereof on
the 18th day of September, 1879, upon
charge of falsely assuming to be a
special agent of Internal Revenue and